View previous stories
	International Criminal Court - 104 countries have signed up by UN News / The Economist   January 29, 2007   UN Official hails International Court"s decision to try Militia Leader. (UN News Service)   The top United Nations official dealing with children and armed conflict today welcomed a ruling by the International Criminal Court (ICC) to try Congolese militia leader Thomas Lubanga Dyilo for war crimes involving recruiting children as soldiers, in what would be the Hague-based court"s first trial.   "This case is considered a major milestone in international attempts to fight against impunity in order to eradicate the practice of using child soldiers. It will be the first trial of the ICC and, importantly, focuses exclusively on child soldiers," said a statement from the Office of UN Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict Radhika Coomaraswamy.   "The former militia leader from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is charged with war crimes for enlisting, recruiting and using children under fifteen in hostilities. The Office of the Special Representative reiterates its supports to the ICC and will follow closely the different steps of the proceedings and due process of the Court," it added.   The Pre-Trial Chamber of the ICC confirmed the charges against Mr. Lubanga Dyilo and referred the case to trial.   Mr. Lubanga Dyilo was formally charged by the ICC Prosecutor"s office in August last year and hearings took place in November. He was arrested in March and is the President of the Union des Patriotes Congolais (UPC) and was the commander-in-chief of its former military wing, the Forces Patriotiques pour la Libération du Congo (FPLC) in 2002-03 in the Ituri district in the north-eastern DRC.   He is accused of playing "an overall coordinating role" in the policy of the FPLC to recruit and enlist child soldiers and providing the "organizational, infrastructural and logistical framework for its implementation."   Established by the Rome Statute of 1998, the ICC can try cases involving individuals charged with war crimes committed since July 2002. The UN Security Council, the ICC Prosecutor or a State Party to the court can initiate any proceedings, and the ICC only acts when countries themselves are unwilling or unable to investigate or prosecute.   The Assembly of States Parties to the ICC"s Rome Statute - the Court"s management oversight and legislative body - met today at UN Headquarters in New York, where its President, Bruno Stagno Ugarte of Costa Rica, announced that the charges had been confirmed against Mr. Lubanga Dyilo. All concerned are "pleased, very pleased that the ICC is moving forward" on the case, he said.   Jan 26, 2007   International Criminal Court - 104 countries have signed up, by Claudio Munoz. (The Economist)   The world"s first permanent war-crimes tribunal is proving more robust than expected; even sceptical America is softening its line.   When the International Criminal Court (ICC) struggled into being, its well-wishers were unsure how long this fragile creature would survive, let alone if it would vindicate its creators hopes of dishing out just deserts to tyrants.   Aged four-and-a-half, the tribunal is proving a lustier infant than many predicted. Its prosecutors have delved deeply into horrible wars in Congo, Sudan and Uganda. The court"s first trial—of Thomas Lubanga, a Congolese warlord, accused of using children as soldiers—is due to start later this year. The first indictments for the mass killings in Sudan"s Darfur region are expected next month. Five leaders of Uganda"s rebel Lord"s Resistance Army have already been indicted. One has since been killed, but the other four face trial when caught. An investigation into atrocities in a fourth, as yet unnamed, country is due to be announced soon.   As the court"s reputation grows, so does the number of countries that have signed up—104 at the last count. They include all the main European states. Japan, which will become its biggest donor by far, is expected to join later this year. But the real change in the court"s fortunes stems from a gradual shift in America"s attitude: it has moved from outright hostility to some cautious signals that, in some parts of the world, it sees the ICC as useful.   In the court"s early days, the administration devoted huge energy to limiting the risk of American citizens being hauled in. Using threats to hold back economic or military aid, it cajoled about 100 states into signing bilateral accords to keep Americans out of the court"s grip. Under these deals, countries vowed that Americans would be immune from prosecution for atrocities committed on their soil—and would in no event be sent to the ICC.   John Bolton, America"s erstwhile ambassador to the UN, hailed his country"s decision in May 2002 to pull out of the ICC (not to be confused with the World Court, also in The Hague) as the “happiest moment” of his government career. Tom DeLay, the former Republican House majority leader, lambasted it as a “kangaroo court...a shady amalgam of every bad idea ever cooked up for world government”. President George Bush called it a “foreign court” where “unaccountable judges and prosecutors can pull our troops or diplomats up for trial”.   Despite the court"s repeated assurances, conservative American congressmen and officials feared that the world"s sole superpower would become the target of politically-motivated prosecutions.   Although some fears remain, the tone has undoubtedly changed. Mr Bush recently waived restrictions on military aid to 21 countries, and curbs on economic aid to a further 14, despite their refusal to sign bilateral immunity deals. Senator John McCain, a Republican presidential hopeful, has said he wants to see the United States in the ICC. In an article in the Washington Post, he and a former senator, Bob Dole, urged America and its allies “to use their intelligence assets, including satellite technology” to help the ICC in Darfur.   John Bellinger, chief legal adviser to Condoleezza Rice in the State Department, has been the driving force behind the change of attitude. He thinks the campaign against the court undermines broader American aims, such as ending impunity for the worst crimes. “Divisiveness over the ICC distracts from our ability to pursue these common goals,” he has said. “We do acknowledge that it has a role to play.”   Ms Rice has herself urged a softer line, saying America was “shooting itself in the foot” by imposing sanctions on those unwilling to sign bilateral immunity deals. Many such states were old American allies who reacted by moving closer to China.   The first sign of a shift came with America"s surprise decision not to veto the Security Council"s referral of Darfur to the court in March 2005. When Serge Brammertz, the ICC"s deputy chief prosecutor, was appointed to head the UN"s inquiry into the murder of Rafik Hariri, Lebanon"s former prime minister, nine months later, not a grumble was heard from America. Nor did it object when the Security Council voted last summer to transfer Charles Taylor, a former Liberian president, to the ICC"s premises in The Hague for trial. And America"s ambassador to Uganda has been urging support for the ICC"s prosecution of the Lord"s Resistance Army rebels, despite criticism from local community leaders who claim that the threat of arrest is impeding the peace process.   On their own, these signals may not amount to much. But together they suggest at least the beginnings of a change of heart. Mixed messages are still coming out of Washington; but the vitriol has gone.   As well as sensing that it may have something to gain from using the court, the Bush administration seems also to have been convinced that the risk of America or Americans being placed in the dock is less than originally feared. Administration officials were impressed by the court"s carefully reasoned rejection of the hundreds of allegations it has received regarding America"s role in Iraq—including suggestions that it was guilty of aggression or even genocide.   Luis Moreno-Ocampo, the court"s chief prosecutor, argued as follows: first, the war involved states (Iraq and America) that are not members and therefore lie outside the court"s jurisdiction, unless the UN Security Council (on which America has a veto) decides otherwise. Second, the court intervenes only when the home country fails to. America has already put some of its own soldiers on trial for crimes committed in Iraq.   Third, the crime of “aggression” is still undefined and thus cannot be applied. Fourth, Mr Moreno-Ocampo found no evidence to substantiate a charge of genocide, defined in the court"s statutes as an “intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial or religious group”, or a crime against humanity, defined as “a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population”. And though he did find evidence of isolated cases of rape, inhuman treatment and “wilful killing” of civilians, they were not sufficiently widespread to meet the threshold of gravity required.   Problems still lie ahead for the court, whose “leniency” towards America may disappoint some members. But it is off the danger list. “We have no more concerns about the court"s vulnerability,” says Philippe Kirsch, its Canadian president.   Even though polls suggest that two out of three Americans favour joining the ICC, America is unlikely to sign up any time soon. The court has been so demonised by the Bush administration (and before that, so quibbled at by the Clinton White House) that it would take years to convince Congress to accept it. But court officials are privately making a bold prediction: one day, America will swallow all its doubts and join.
	Rights group says torture widespread in Egypt by Amnesty International, news agencies Egypt   April 2007   Rights group says torture widespread in Egypt, by Jasper. (Associated Press)   A leading human rights group accused Egypt yesterday of systematically abusing prisoners -- including torture and years of detention without trial -- and warned that the problem could worsen because of recent constitutional changes.   Among those who have been tortured are prisoners transferred to Egypt under the CIA''s controversial "extraordinary rendition" program in the war on terror, Amnesty International said in a report, citing accounts from five detainees. It called on Egypt to stop interrogating suspects sent to the country under the program.   The London-based group said 18,000 people were in Egyptian jails without trial, including some who have been held for more than a decade. The torture has included electric shocks, suspension by the wrists or ankles, and psychological pressure, such as rape threats against prisoners or their female relatives, the report said.   Cabinet spokesman Magdy Rady denied that torture was systematic.   "We, as a government, cannot condone at all any kind of torture," Rady said. "When we hear of torture, we deal with it in a legal way."   The 18,000 number came from Egyptian rights groups that disputed the Interior Ministry''''s figures of 3,000 to 4,000, Amnesty official Said Haddidi said during a news conference. Rady said he could not comment on the figures because he had not read Amnesty''s report.   Amnesty criticized the government for using the international terror threat to justify amendments to the constitution that increased the government''s security powers.   The group was particularly concerned about an amendment that suspended civil rights in terror investigations and enabled the state to prosecute civilians in military courts, which are known for taking shortcuts with due process. The changes were approved in a referendum last month that was widely criticized as massively rigged .   "Governments have an obligation to protect their citizens," said Curt Goering, deputy executive director of Amnesty International in the United States. "But in so doing, they can''t pursue measures that in the process result in the wholesale destruction of fundamental human rights."   Amnesty''s deputy Middle East director, Hassiba Hadj Sahroui, said the situation was getting worse "in the sense that the safeguards against torture in the constitution have been undermined."   Amnesty said detainees sent to Egypt under the rendition policy were tortured and denied the right to appear in court. It cited the accounts of five detainees, including an Egyptian cleric who says he was kidnapped in Italy and transferred to Egypt for interrogation. Italy has indicted 26 Americans and five Italian agents accused of seizing the cleric.   Osama Hassan Mustafa Nasr, also known as Abu Omar, has said that once in Egypt, he was sodomized, stripped naked, beaten with electric cables and water hoses, and given electric shocks while being pinned to a wet mattress.   Jan. 2007   Human rights groups have called for international action against Egypt, where they say there"s an "epidemic of torture" in jails and police cells. One particularly brutal incident recorded on a mobile phone has been posted on the Internet and shows a young man being raped.   A shocking video of abuse recorded on a mobile phone by the Egyptian police. The video is authentic, just one of a number of clips to appear on the Internet.   It"s exposed a dark secret that Egyptians have long known - abuse and torture have been problems for years but the government has done little to stop it. Egypt"s police are a powerful and sometimes menacing presence. Even filming out on the streets quickly attracts their attention.   But a new video has just come to light that has shocked many in Egypt.   A young bus driver called Emad al-Kabir was brought to this police station last year. An ordinary man whose crime was to intervene in an argument involving the police. But he was beaten, he was whipped, and what happened next is horrifying. Emad was sexually assaulted. An attack filmed by the police themselves and sent to his friends as a warning.   He wants the tape to be shown to let the world see how he was treated. And despite the publicity surrounding his case, Emad was sent to prison for three months for resisting arrest.   Emad Al-Kabir, Tortured Prisoner ( Translation) : They threatened me not to say anything. They even offered me money to keep quiet. But I refused. What I want is my dignity. I want my rights.   This isn"t the first time the Interior Ministry has been under this kind of scrutiny. They were unavailable for comment, but have issued a statement.   The Egyptian Government has been thrown off balance by these allegations. Even so, they have been swift to respond and two of the officers involved in these latest revelations have now been charged. Even so, the Egyptian Government insists that these are just isolated incidents and not part of a wider phenomenon.   Britain says it has raised concerns about these cases. But until recently, it was trying to sign an agreement to guarantee that people it sends back to Egypt won"t be abused. For human rights groups, these guarantees mean nothing.   Elijah Zarwan, Human Rights Watch: I think it"s fair to say that there is a torture epidemic in Egyptian detention facilities. As the case of Emad al-Kabir demonstrates, it"s not only political prisoners who are tortured, it"s also people arrested on petty crimes.   Egypt has undergone many changes in recent years but it"s still ruled by one man and one party and it"s coercion, not persuasion, that dominates many people"s lives. Visit the related web page
	View more stories